Just hours ahead of the inauguration day — the date set for his swearing-in at the White House as President of the United States — Joe Biden made a decision that has drawn considerable criticism even from his own supporters, by appointing Tom Vilsack to lead the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This is not the first time Vilsack — a 70-year-old Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania native with a law degree — has held this role. After serving as Governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007, he led the USDA throughout both Obama administrations, from 2009 to 2017 — the same period during which Biden served as Vice President.

It is precisely the choices Vilsack made at the time that are now alarming various groups, including advocates of organic farming, small farms, Black farmers and ranchers, and those who have long sought to reform the department. Let's take it step by step.

"Mister Monsanto"

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), a non-profit organisation that promotes organic products in the United States, immediately voiced its opposition, recalling that in 2001 Vilsack had been named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization (now the Biotechnology Innovation Organization), the largest trade association in the biotechnology sector. According to the OCA, Vilsack approved more genetically modified organisms (GMOs) than any other Secretary of Agriculture in the country's history — at least 13.

Among these, many were developed by the multinational Monsanto: sugar beets, whose use was subsequently ruled illegal; alfalfa; maize, cotton, and soy. All engineered to withstand the onslaught of pesticides, such as the notorious Roundup, based on glyphosate, sold by the multinational itself. That is why Vilsack has been nicknamed "Mister Monsanto".

He is also president of the American Dairy Export Council (USDEC), which represents the interests of the dairy industry and, according to the OCA, funds intensive livestock farming, the use of genetically modified and pesticide-heavy feed, and supports the practice of keeping prices paid to farmers below the cost of production in order to ensure the consolidation of ever-larger agricultural enterprises.

The role of the Department of Agriculture in the fight against climate change

Reflecting the priorities of Donald Trump, outgoing Secretary Sonny Perdue invested little in climate change mitigation. Now many are hoping things will change. The Department of Agriculture could indeed become "one of the biggest sponsors of climate action," first and foremost because it has substantial funds at its disposal. Its budget includes billions of dollars for infrastructure programmes that, in addition to funding broadband expansion to connect communities to telemedicine networks, e-learning portals and online casino platforms, could be leveraged to bring wind and solar energy to rural areas, or to fund low-environmental-impact farming practices capable of capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Moreover, the USDA has at its disposal the so-called Commodity Credit Corporation, a kind of "bank" that the Trump administration used to make payments to farmers, but which could be converted into a "carbon bank" to provide incentives to those who reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the agency is also responsible for the Forest Service, which manages some 80 million hectares of land across the country. This is a body whose role is becoming increasingly crucial in the face of wildfires that grow more dangerous every year due to global warming, and on which depend those reforestation programmes that could make a real difference in the midst of a climate crisis.

David vs Goliath

Many are the concerns of those who would have preferred someone capable of disrupting the status quo at the helm of the Department of Agriculture, rather than someone ready to favour big corporates at the expense of small businesses.

"Throughout his career, Vilsack has done nothing but cater to the whims of agricultural giants," argues Mitch Jones of the environmental collective Food and Water Watch. If he were to behave in the same way again, it could prove damaging for Biden, who during the election campaign sought to win over rural America, without much success — as most farmers voted for Trump once again. Perhaps because the Republican administration granted them record federal aid to cope with the trade war first and the coronavirus pandemic thereafter.

Sonny Perdue, however, failed to adequately manage the national food assistance programmes for lower-income families, nor school meal services. It is estimated that one in four Americans uses at least one of these programmes during the year, and so the new Secretary is expected to deliver substantial funding — all the more so in light of the pandemic, which has significantly increased unemployment.

When two quarrel, the third wins?

Biden most likely chose Vilsack because he considered him an experienced figure to whom he could entrust the rebuilding of the agency after a difficult few years. He chose him despite agricultural lobbies pushing for North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp, while more liberal voices were hoping for Marcia Fudge, an African American representative from Ohio. Biden instead nominated her as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

The disappointment of the Black community

Despite the president-elect having "boasted" about forming the most diverse administration in history, Black farmers had been hoping to finally see themselves represented through the appointment of Fudge to the department. But that was not to be. The well-known newspaper Washington Post reports that a few days before Christmas, Vilsack held a video conference with some of the most prominent civil rights activists and spokespersons for African American agricultural entrepreneurs. The latter expected an acknowledgement that the USDA had "marginalised and systematically discriminated" against them for years, both through legislation and through perverse market logic, making it harder for them to access loans and government programmes. So much so that over the past century, land owned by Black Americans has decreased by 85 per cent.

"They have two separate administrative processes, one for the most disadvantaged entrepreneurs and another for white people in a similar position. When a white person submits a request, they receive a response within 180 days. A Black person's complaint, on the other hand, ends up in a pile and will never be read," Corey Lea, a Tennessee farmer, tells the Post. It seems that Vilsack did not go so far as to acknowledge the failings of the body he represents, but at least admitted his own, conceding that he could have done more in the past and declaring himself ready to make amends.

"He needs to create a culture of social and racial justice within the agency in order to even begin repairing the mistakes that have been made," adds Shirley Sherrod, one of the participants in the video call. The first step expected of Vilsack is the promotion of the Justice for Black Farmers Act, introduced in November by several senators including Elizabeth Warren, which could at least partially improve the situation.

In short, Tom Vilsack is a man we will need to keep a close eye on in the coming months. Given the global influence of the United States and the weight it carries on issues such as racism and rising temperatures – thank goodness Biden wants to rejoin the Paris Agreement – the power held by the Secretary is not to be taken lightly. "With great power comes great responsibility," Uncle Ben told Peter Parker. At a historic moment when it truly feels as though we are living inside a comic book, with a monster threatening our very survival, those words take on an even deeper meaning. Dear Mr Monsanto, don't let us down.